Art Ain’t A Mirror, It’s A Hammer (Part 1 of 3)

“The times, they are a’changin” Dylan sang, and in the few weeks that passed between my jotting down this idea for a blog post and actually getting around to writing it, the creative world changed again and again and again…

But before we delve into that, let’s look at this quote by our old pal, Bertolt Brecht:

“Art is not a mirror held up to reality
but a hammer with which to shape it.”

Get it? 
Got it? 
Good.

Now we’re going to throw in some miniskirts to the mix, add a little Samuel Beckett for good measure, then top it off with a nice Rick Beato finish.

Bear with me…

. . .

Brecht’s point was that art doesn’t reflect reality, it helps shape it by conveying ideas from the artist to the audience, ideas meant to console / challenge / desensitize / provoke / disturb / placate them and in doing so, help shape the choices and actions they make going forward.

Art is filled with unintended consequences, and typically low art / pop culture wields a far greater impact than high art / culture.

Case in point: 
Who did more to channel outrage against fascism, Pablo Picasso with Guernica or Jack Kirby & Joe Simon with Captain America?

Take all the time you need answering that.

Now let’s look at one of the most important artists of the 20th century:  Mary Quant.

Many of you (especially those with XY chromosomes) are going “Who?” while those who do recognize the name don’t recognize how much she helped changed the world.

Ms Quant invented the miniskirt in 1963 -- and that three square feet of fabric contributed mightily to the youthquake and subsequent cultural and political upheavals felt around the planet.

She owned a boutique in London for the fashion conscious yet on a budget young set. And while skirts had crept up to knee length by the late 50s / early 60s, Quant said “Wot the hell, luv, right?” or words to that effect and jumped several generations of fashion evolution.

The effect proved electrifying in ways intended and unintended.

The intended way meant fashion conscious young women could inexpensively look tres chic while still being able to afford rent and food.  Most young men approved of the fashion and encouraged the young ladies (or “birds” as they were called in London back in the day) to follow the trend.

It meant the style got plenty of play in the press and on television, which bolstered popularity and sales.

Unintended effects?  A mighty pushback against the trend, with young women being arrested in many instances and the garment outright banned in more than a few locales such as the Vatican and the Deep South, being denounced from pulpits and podiums alike.

The real unintended effect?

While the miniskirt began life as a typical “Hey!  Look at me!” fashion trend, it soon morphed into something entirely different.

It was -- in the overused terminology of the times -- a liberating experience for the wearers, not just allowing more physical freedom of movement but also signaling to others in their tribe that they were young, free spirited, adventurous, and full of new ideas (yeah, I know the kneeslapper is that every new generation considers going back to the Pleistocene considers themselves to be “free spirited, adventurous, and full of new ideas”).

And while not every young women adopted it, the miniskirt sure became a cultural identifier for all young women, even those who felt it exploited them.

By wearing it openly in defiance of conventional fashion, it helped encourage women as a whole to be more openly defiant in other areas as well.

No, the miniskirt didn’t spawn the feminist movement, but it sure didn’t hinder it, either.

And paradoxically, it helped young women feel free enough to make other fashion choices.  Sure, slacks had been acceptable for women in certain informal occasions since the 1930s, and late 1940s teen girls pioneered wearing blue jeans outside of the farm, but if the miniskirt was the primary female fashion statement of the 1960s, jeans & T-shirts weren’t far behind and grannie dresses pushed a respectable third.

Indeed, jeans & Ts became practically unisex ubiquitous during the 1970s and to this day are considered normal wear for people of all genders.

To say the miniskirt made all these societal changes possible would be a gross overstatement.

But it sure made them easier.

Did Mary Quant intend that?

No.

All she wanted was to create a bright bit of fashion that felt fun to wear.

Her customers brought the meaning to her art.

© Buzz Dixon